Extreme Parenting -according to TIME

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Well, I CAN Photoshop a poof in, as well as a jean skirt. I might as well remove any TRACE of "paint" on her face as well.

You should have.
This is disturbing.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I have read in a few foreign countries this is normal. But, because they don't have access to formula and other nutritious products. And I don't think it has anything to do with nutrition for American women to do this. Unless you are in poverty maybe.

When my sister and brother-in-law were expecting their first he told me that he learned in one of their classes that the average age, world wide, that kids are "nursed to" was somewhere between 4 and 5 years. He had the same reaction to that stat that I did by looking at the TIME cover. LOL

[MissBrattified]

I think it's hilarious that this photo is so shocking to a culture which loves pornography and scantily clad women--but then, the objectification of women and their breasts as sex objects is partly responsible for the shock.

I'm not really convinced of the need or appropriate nature of long-term breastfeeding (meaning: past the toddler years). However, in my experience, Apostolic women are LESS likely to nurse their babies for a long time, and conservatism has nothing to do with breastfeeding. In fact, it's usually the more liberal, crunchy-granola types who support this.

I DO support breastfeeding at LEAST until they're 1, and until 2 or 3 is even better if you can do it. It's healthier for the child.

I absolutely do NOT believe this has anything to do with pedophilic urges on the part of the Mother and I find that suggestion to be morally reprehensible and ludicrous. There is a push against our western culture which has objectified the female breast as being purely for sexual pleasure when in fact God created female breasts to feed babies. They are a practical addition to our bodies. He didn't create them for male enjoyment, although I'm sure that's a side benefit. They were created for nourishing children.

There are men who are even jealous of their babies nursing for various reasons and I find that to be sickening indeed. While I personally support a more modest approach, I also am disheartened at the over-sexualization of this very normal mother-child act and bond, and part of me thinks that it shouldn't be all that shocking for a woman to nurse her child in public. Oddly enough, I've heard stories of how public nursing was more common back in my Grandmother's time. It seems that more recent European culture has made this taboo--and I find that appalling.

We have Burmese people in our church community, and when we go to their homes, it's quite common to see a mother walking around with a 2 year old tied into a sling around her shoulder, nursing with no coverage. THEIR men don't blink an eyeball or stare or even act uncomfortable. That tells me that it's the American (or western) mindset that is the problem; not public nursing of children.

As for nursing older children: That's a gray territory which medical science hasn't explored extensively enough for me to have a good opinion. Although I think it's completely unnecessary, I'm not convinced it's particularly psychologically damaging unless it continues into the pre-pubescent stage (9 or 10+) or past the child's comfort level, e.g., the child has tried to self-wean and the mother is preventing that from happening. I find it comical, weird and inappropriate, but I would have to see scientific data before I would call it abusive or damaging.

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by Cindy

My biggest problem with the photo is the pose. I am wondering if they are models. And if they are, what parent lets their child pose like this with someone else. If that is really mother and child, the pose is just the wrong way to get a message across to me.

I think that kid has same sex parents.
I guess next they'll have to show a nipple?

[Dordrecht]

There are men who are even jealous of their babies nursing.

I would not stay in your church to long, that's for sure!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Cindy

My biggest problem with the photo is the pose. I am wondering if they are models. And if they are, what parent lets their child pose like this with someone else. If that is really mother and child, the pose is just the wrong way to get a message across to me.

Not models. The mother and son were on morning news shows.

Time magazine, along with most newspapers and print magazines are hemorrhaging due to the new media. They have to try to get people to even look at their magazines let alone buy them.

It's shock journalism.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Not models. The mother and son were on morning news shows.

Time magazine, along with most newspapers and print magazines are hemorrhaging due to the new media. They have to try to get people to even look at their magazines let alone buy them.

It's shock journalism.

I agree. The TIME picture doesn't help nursing mothers as a community; it hinders them. Instead of presenting a more normal, nurturing picture, they've put up something at the controversial fringe of the breastfeeding culture and polarized the debate.

It's unfortunate, at the very least. However, it's important to not allow that picture to cause an unnecessarily extreme reaction toward breastfeeding (including public) as a whole. TIME was being shocking on purpose. Most nursing mothers aren't shocking at all. They're just feeding their babies.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

I would not stay in your church to long, that's for sure!

Huh? What does my church have to do with any of my comments?

[Dordrecht]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Huh? What does my church have to do with any of my comments?

I thought you were talking about the men in your church.

It's shock journalism.

Like some forums.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

I thought you were talking about the men in your church.

No, not at all.

Funny how people associate these ideas with conservative church culture. In my experience, church people have been more likely to see this as taboo and make [IMO, unhealthy] choices to formula-feed because they feel breastfeeding is inappropriate or distasteful. I've NEVER known a conservative Apostolic woman who breastfeed past the age of 3 or 4 [max].

When we lived in Louisiana, I was surprised at the number of Apostolic women who didn't even consider natural birthing methods or breastfeeding. It was pain meds and formula-fed all the way. I'm not knocking it necessarily, because sometimes those choices are necessary, but the latter in particular is not the best choice for a baby. Sometimes necessary or preferable, but definitely the inferior choice from a purely nutritional perspective.